Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[Czech_pivo]

I think you and others here have done a good job articulating who gains and loses from the status quo, and from a hypothetical major correction in the market. I don’t see much disagreement here on the basic facts of this.

Stepping back and taking a societal view, a big part of the problem I think is that, following the massive run ups of say a decade ago, we now have a whole generation that has entered the workforce and is at the right place in life to be starting families, but with the now much inflated housing prices, they face massive, massive barriers to entry. The inaccessibility of ownership in many places leaves them caught in the rent trap, which has itself inflated considerably.

It’s not good, generally, to have up and coming generations cut off from the dream everyone had up to their parents and which their parents still believe in and express to them. It’s harmful to social and political cohesion to have that large a cohort seeing the ladders pulled up behind the last crew who climbed…

Stagnant housing prices coupled with inflation will eventually reduce this problem, but on a generational time frame. Not soon enough to help the young couples in their mid to late 20s, nor those coming up behind. Or even the tail end millennials who took longer to get well paid careers established.

A major correction downwards would have an impact, but it would need a major trigger of a lot of people trying to sell inflated supply into a market that has seen demand destruction from prices too high for too long. I don’t know what such a trigger would be. And How much would such a major correction actually hit livable family residences versus bachelor or shoebox condos that nobody’s starting a family in anyway? The housing market is far from monolithic…

Damned if I know how Canada balances the policy challenges here - affordability, social cohesion, reliance on home equity, etc etc…

Not sure if it’s accurate in saying ‘mid to late 20’s’ when buying a first home today.

The median age is 29.9yrs in Canada to get married and the average age for a male is 32.2yrs and for a female it’s 30.8yrs. Most people wait until they are married to buy their first home. Which put the most into their early 30s.

I was a month shy of turning 34 when we bought our first house. That was after supporting my wife going back to do her graduate work to become a SLP. We lived in a small, older studio apartment, had no car and lived frugally during that time.

But with that being said, a solution going forward does need to be found. Building homes that provide shelter, affordability and the allowing of the building of equity - with the realistic expectation that the first house won’t be 2,000sq ft in size with an on-suite with a rain shower, 14ft granite island with 12ft ceilings throughout, oversized double garage with a jacuzzi, inground heated salt water pool with a waterfall and a stone pizza oven out back.
It should be 1200-1300sq ft, with 3 bdrms, 1.5 bath, single car garage with a double car driveway and an unfinished basement on a 40-45ft wide by 110ft deep lot.
Just my 2cents.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Conservative and Liberal MPs can hardly be considered motivated to reduce housing costs. They're all home owners and landlords.

Landlords in the House: Advocates see a bias in Parliament against renters - National | Globalnews.ca

A Global News analysis of the financial disclosures of MPs as well as questions to a select number of politicians has found that every person in Carney's ministry is a homeowner.

globalnews.ca

 

[Brad Sallows]

Damned if I know how Canada balances the policy challenges here - affordability, social cohesion, reliance on home equity, etc etc…

A large cohort is aging out and transferring away its accumulated assets into end-of-life medical care, long-term care, various donations and bequests and whatnot while they are alive to enjoy giving, and inheritances. That all happens without government involvement, unless governments decide they have better uses for transferred assets than those who, for now, receive them.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Conservative and Liberal MPs can hardly be considered motivated to reduce housing costs. They're all home owners and landlords.

Landlords in the House: Advocates see a bias in Parliament against renters - National | Globalnews.ca

A Global News analysis of the financial disclosures of MPs as well as questions to a select number of politicians has found that every person in Carney's ministry is a homeowner.

globalnews.ca

How does one convince a home builder - one that can build at volume, meaning into the hundreds per year at a minimum, to build homes smaller in size, with less amenities, with lower end fixtures and add on’s, all with a solid level of quality, when there is still a large enough market to keep building larger homes, with a higher value and overall return on profits?

We live in a free market economy where the market bears the price and profit.

Unless the individual Provinces start new provincial entities, who’s mandate is to build homes, nothing is going to change.

 

[Czech_pivo]

There is a home 2 blocks from mine that has been in the market 3 times over the last 4yrs, listed as a ‘knock down’. It has no house on one side or behind as it sits adjacent to a park. The lot is about 65-70ft wide and about 125-135ft deep.
The house has not been lived in for the last 4yrs. It’s a bungalow with a 1 car garage. Each time it’s been listed as a knockdown the price has gone up. It will be torn down 100% and have a new, larger home built in it.
The current listing price - 1,390,000$ - as a tear down.

 

[YZT580]

Not sure if it’s accurate in saying ‘mid to late 20’s’ when buying a first home today.

The median age is 29.9yrs in Canada to get married and the average age for a male is 32.2yrs and for a female it’s 30.8yrs. Most people wait until they are married to buy their first home. Which put the most into their early 30s.

I was a month shy of turning 34 when we bought our first house. That was after supporting my wife going back to do her graduate work to become a SLP. We lived in a small, older studio apartment, had no car and lived frugally during that time.

But with that being said, a solution going forward does need to be found. Building homes that provide shelter, affordability and the allowing of the building of equity - with the realistic expectation that the first house won’t be 2,000sq ft in size with an on-suite with a rain shower, 14ft granite island with 12ft ceilings throughout, oversized double garage with a jacuzzi, inground heated salt water pool with a waterfall and a stone pizza oven out back.
It should be 1200-1300sq ft, with 3 bdrms, 1.5 bath, single car garage with a double car driveway and an unfinished basement on a 40-45ft wide by 110ft deep lot.
Just my 2cents.

I guess I constantly date myself. Most of members of my Grade 13 class were either married at 19 or immediately upon graduation from college if not during their college years.

 

[Eaglelord17]

How does one convince a home builder - one that can build at volume, meaning into the hundreds per year at a minimum, to build homes smaller in size, with less amenities, with lower end fixtures and add on’s, all with a solid level of quality, when there is still a large enough market to keep building larger homes, with a higher value and overall return on profits?

We live in a free market economy where the market bears the price and profit.

Unless the individual Provinces start new provincial entities, who’s mandate is to build homes, nothing is going to change.

The Vienna model of housing is how we get it to change. Exceptionally effective at providing high quality and affordable housing. A purely socialist program which has resulted in the cheapest and highest quality of housing in Europe.

Home builders go for whatever has the most profits. If that is shoebox condos, they build shoebox condos. If that is 3200sqft mansions they build those. If it is 1100sqft budget homes, they build those.

You can’t tell private industry to make what benefits the most people, they will go for whatever makes the most cash. You can’t tell private however make a crown corp which uses Viennas model to make affordable quality housing which benefits everyone.

One big thing everyone is missing about the housing crisis is the provincial governments all stopped building housing in the 90s with the price crash. They never restarted putting more and more strain on the public housing side of things and meaning there is less options for those lower income earners.

 

[brihard]

Not sure if it’s accurate in saying ‘mid to late 20’s’ when buying a first home today.

The median age is 29.9yrs in Canada to get married and the average age for a male is 32.2yrs and for a female it’s 30.8yrs. Most people wait until they are married to buy their first home. Which put the most into their early 30s.

I was a month shy of turning 34 when we bought our first house. That was after supporting my wife going back to do her graduate work to become a SLP. We lived in a small, older studio apartment, had no car and lived frugally during that time.

But with that being said, a solution going forward does need to be found. Building homes that provide shelter, affordability and the allowing of the building of equity - with the realistic expectation that the first house won’t be 2,000sq ft in size with an on-suite with a rain shower, 14ft granite island with 12ft ceilings throughout, oversized double garage with a jacuzzi, inground heated salt water pool with a waterfall and a stone pizza oven out back.
It should be 1200-1300sq ft, with 3 bdrms, 1.5 bath, single car garage with a double car driveway and an unfinished basement on a 40-45ft wide by 110ft deep lot.
Just my 2cents.

Sorry, didn’t mean to say the mid to late 20s were gonna be buying right away. Just that they’re entering that stage of life where those big long term decisions are being thought about and planned for. Add the time lag for any macroeconomic policy intention to turn into delivered reality, and really that’s the cohort probably feeling the problem the most right now or imminently.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Sorry, didn’t mean to say the mid to late 20s were gonna be buying right away. Just that they’re entering that stage of life where those big long term decisions are being thought about and planned for. Add the time lag for any macroeconomic policy intention to turn into delivered reality, and really that’s the cohort probably feeling the problem the most right now or imminently.

Average first time homebuyer in Ontario is 40 now. The average age in the early 90s was 27-30.

Wages have stagnated. Some basic examples from 2000 as a snap shot into how bad it has gotten. In 2000 the average individual income was 51,418$. The average median income (i.e. what most were actually making) was 40,443$. Average household income was 68,318$.

In todays dollars those numbers are 91,891$ for a individual, 72,277$ for a median, and 122,094$ for a household.

The current reality is 68,700$ for a individual (or 23,191$ less), median of 46,300$ (or 25,977$ less) and a household income of 106,300$ (or 15,794$ less).

The youth are drowning, and all we are doing is propping up the seniors so they get to listen to the fiddle as the titanic sinks.

 

[brihard]

Average first time homebuyer in Ontario is 40 now. The average age in the early 90s was 27-30.

Wages have stagnated. Some basic examples from 2000 as a snap shot into how bad it has gotten. In 2000 the average individual income was 51,418$. The average median income (i.e. what most were actually making) was 40,443$. Average household income was 68,318$.

In todays dollars those numbers are 91,891$ for a individual, 72,277$ for a median, and 122,094$ for a household.

The current reality is 68,700$ for a individual (or 23,191$ less), median of 46,300$ (or 25,977$ less) and a household income of 106,300$ (or 15,794$ less).

The youth are drowning, and all we are doing is propping up the seniors so they get to listen to the fiddle as the titanic sinks.

Yup. There’s nothing wrong with the kids. They’re as smart and as hard working as previous generations. But they face a reality of less relative return on their investments in work and education. The middle class dreams of their parents are denied to many more of them than ever before.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Post deleted.

OAS is directly my problem. Paying people making well above average income welfare takes away money from those who actually need it or lowering our deficit/debt.

Pretending paying well off people welfare isn’t a issue is putting your head in the sand because you are benefiting from it. Unless you think we should pay everyone that same amount with the same income levels?

Companies don’t hand out raises because they keep consolidating more and more wealth at the top and less and less for your average joe. My CEO last year got a bonus worth 4x his 1.5 million salary when the company lost a billion dollars last year. His salary for that one year is the amount 3 employees would make over a full career and retirement there. Corporate greed has nothing to do with productivity.

My brother worked at marks workwear house for a while. During the pandemic they were told they would get no raises due to the economic climate. My brother being a bit more aware asked why when the company was making record profits. All questions were stopped at that point.

 

[YZT580]

OAS is directly my problem. Paying people making well above average income welfare takes away money from those who actually need it or lowering our deficit/debt.

Pretending paying well off people welfare isn’t a issue is putting your head in the sand because you are benefiting from it. Unless you think we should pay everyone that same amount with the same income levels?

Companies don’t hand out raises because they keep consolidating more and more wealth at the top and less and less for your average joe. My CEO last year got a bonus worth 4x his 1.5 million salary when the company lost a billion dollars last year. His salary for that one year is the amount 3 employees would make over a full career and retirement there. Corporate greed has nothing to do with productivity.

My brother worked at marks workwear house for a while. During the pandemic they were told they would get no raises due to the economic climate. My brother being a bit more aware asked why when the company was making record profits. All questions were stopped at that point.

so your solution is to take from the rich and give to the poor. Mind if I call you Robin? That has never worked in all the centuries it has been tried. All you end up with is more poor people. In 2020 the median family income was 73000. In 2024 it was 65000. In the States the comparable figures are 67,000 for 2020 and 83,700 for 2024. We aren't losing because of OAS we are losing because our laws and government policies are keeping you poor whilst they enrich their friends. We are losing because when two separate governments offered to buy into our resources ours told them to get lost that there wasn't a business case for it. We introduced regulations to prohibit larger ships from sailing in our waters and made sure that there would be no product to buy anyway because there was no way to get it there. The saga of the F35 could be applied to every major purchase or development that has been suggested. We have allowed ourselves to be hijacked by every indigenous group that wants to file a complaint even though the many of them are nothing more than a large family group. And you dare blame a bunch of old folks for the mess we are in. It is time to wake up and face the truth. We are collectively driving this country into irrelevance. We have a PM who keeps grabbing the football away from Charlie Brown. His agreement with Alberta is proof of that. Here, go build a pipeline but we will make you tack on an impossibly expensive capture process and we will still hit you with a carbon bill. Yes Altair, I am trolling.

 

[brihard]

so your solution is to take from the rich and give to the poor. Mind if I call you Robin? That has never worked in all the centuries it has been tried. All you end up with is more poor people. In 2020 the median family income was 73000. In 2024 it was 65000. In the States the comparable figures are 67,000 for 2020 and 83,700 for 2024. We aren't losing because of OAS we are losing because our laws and government policies are keeping you poor whilst they enrich their friends. We are losing because when two separate governments offered to buy into our resources ours told them to get lost that there wasn't a business case for it. We introduced regulations to prohibit larger ships from sailing in our waters and made sure that there would be no product to buy anyway because there was no way to get it there. The saga of the F35 could be applied to every major purchase or development that has been suggested. We have allowed ourselves to be hijacked by every indigenous group that wants to file a complaint even though the many of them are nothing more than a large family group. And you dare blame a bunch of old folks for the mess we are in. It is time to wake up and face the truth. We are collectively driving this country into irrelevance. We have a PM who keeps grabbing the football away from Charlie Brown. His agreement with Alberta is proof of that. Here, go build a pipeline but we will make you tack on an impossibly expensive capture process and we will still hit you with a carbon bill. Yes Altair, I am trolling.

Our country has many problems. Paying OAS to high income elderly Canadians is absolutely one of them. It’s not Robin Hood-eaque ‘steal from the rich’ to change the net income threshold to receive OAS. Not paying high income seniors welfare is simply not paying high income seniors welfare. Why should high income seniors receive welfare?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Conservative and Liberal MPs can hardly be considered motivated to reduce housing costs. They're all home owners and landlords.

Landlords in the House: Advocates see a bias in Parliament against renters - National | Globalnews.ca

A Global News analysis of the financial disclosures of MPs as well as questions to a select number of politicians has found that every person in Carney's ministry is a homeowner.

globalnews.ca

Not just politicians, I have private sector friends whose whole/majority of post work subsistence is based on real estate. A crash in the market would destroy they're ability to retire.

The death and destruction of the private sector pension is criminal IMHO.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Our country has many problems. Paying OAS to high income elderly Canadians is absolutely one of them. It’s not Robin Hood-eaque ‘steal from the rich’ to change the net income threshold to receive OAS. Not paying high income seniors welfare is simply not paying high income seniors welfare. Why should high income seniors receive welfare?

Not disagreeing 100% but, once again, let's discourage good planning and good life choices. I just dont believe they should be a punishment.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Yup. There’s nothing wrong with the kids. They’re as smart and as hard working as previous generations. But they face a reality of less relative return on their investments in work and education. The middle class dreams of their parents are denied to many more of them than ever before.

Watch this click - I sent it to family friends who’s son is in his 3rd yr as an Electrician apprentice.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I think you and others here have done a good job articulating who gains and loses from the status quo, and from a hypothetical major correction in the market. I don’t see much disagreement here on the basic facts of this.

Stepping back and taking a societal view, a big part of the problem I think is that, following the massive run ups of say a decade ago, we now have a whole generation that has entered the workforce and is at the right place in life to be starting families, but with the now much inflated housing prices, they face massive, massive barriers to entry. The inaccessibility of ownership in many places leaves them caught in the rent trap, which has itself inflated considerably.

It’s not good, generally, to have up and coming generations cut off from the dream everyone had up to their parents and which their parents still believe in and express to them. It’s harmful to social and political cohesion to have that large a cohort seeing the ladders pulled up behind the last crew who climbed…

Stagnant housing prices coupled with inflation will eventually reduce this problem, but on a generational time frame. Not soon enough to help the young couples in their mid to late 20s, nor those coming up behind. Or even the tail end millennials who took longer to get well paid careers established.

A major correction downwards would have an impact, but it would need a major trigger of a lot of people trying to sell inflated supply into a market that has seen demand destruction from prices too high for too long. I don’t know what such a trigger would be. And How much would such a major correction actually hit livable family residences versus bachelor or shoebox condos that nobody’s starting a family in anyway? The housing market is far from monolithic…

Damned if I know how Canada balances the policy challenges here - affordability, social cohesion, reliance on home equity, etc etc…

Here's an article out of the US today from the CNBC business site. Same concerns/issues are being felt south of the border.....

'This bargain is eroding': Inside the youngest generations' view of the American Dream

Gen Z is at a tipping point, some economists say: the first U.S. generation in living memory where the majority may be unable to achieve the American Dream.

www.cnbc.com

‘This bargain is eroding’: Inside the youngest generations’ view of the American Dream​

 

[Eaglelord17]

so your solution is to take from the rich and give to the poor. Mind if I call you Robin? That has never worked in all the centuries it has been tried. All you end up with is more poor people. In 2020 the median family income was 73000. In 2024 it was 65000. In the States the comparable figures are 67,000 for 2020 and 83,700 for 2024. We aren't losing because of OAS we are losing because our laws and government policies are keeping you poor whilst they enrich their friends. We are losing because when two separate governments offered to buy into our resources ours told them to get lost that there wasn't a business case for it. We introduced regulations to prohibit larger ships from sailing in our waters and made sure that there would be no product to buy anyway because there was no way to get it there. The saga of the F35 could be applied to every major purchase or development that has been suggested. We have allowed ourselves to be hijacked by every indigenous group that wants to file a complaint even though the many of them are nothing more than a large family group. And you dare blame a bunch of old folks for the mess we are in. It is time to wake up and face the truth. We are collectively driving this country into irrelevance. We have a PM who keeps grabbing the football away from Charlie Brown. His agreement with Alberta is proof of that. Here, go build a pipeline but we will make you tack on an impossibly expensive capture process and we will still hit you with a carbon bill. Yes Altair, I am trolling.

Actually policies that protect the low and middle class actually do work and is what created the greatest economic times in history (the late 1800s-1980s). Without government interference the people would mainly be working slaves forced to work for peanuts with no rights, no protections, and violent evil owners who saw you as a expendable replaceable cog in the machine.

Another important thing to understand about why those laws came into place was because people were about at the point of hanging the rich. If they keep growing their wealth well not bringing up everyone else along the way, it might encourage the same reaction again.

I am not Robin Hood for believing that the rich shouldn’t be pulling much farther ahead on wealth and leaving everyone else struggling. These corporate parasites are slowly but steadily eating away at both the working class and the companies they run.

A simple way to fix it could be to have any bonus paid out to the executives to be paid a equal amount to all employees (i.e. your bonus was 4x your salary, everyone else in the company gets the same). It is fair and simple as the people who run the company didn’t achieve what happened for that company in a vacuum, rather it is a team effort that many times happens in spite of the people running it.

In actuality, I agree with you but singling that out is not the road to recovery as I have tried to point out. It is a distraction. My 12000 is not the reason why the average house in Canada is 847,000 whilst south of us it is 360,000. And explain to me why we were still sending money to support China up until recently; if we aren't still doing so. Explain why hospitals are actually laying off nursing staff and closing facilities whilst crying poor when they are the beneficiaries of much of our GDP. No my friend, you can rant and rave all you want about OAS but that freeing up that portion of the budget isn't going to solve a damn thing.

It is a start to fixing things. I never said it was the magic silver bullet, but it is a step in the right direction. Not trying to fix things is just accepting defeat which is why I referenced fiddling on the titanic.

Seems like a lot of older people just want to keep living the high life without regard for the damage they are doing to the future because they will not have to deal with the consequences.

 

[YZT580]

Actually policies that protect the low and middle class actually do work and is what created the greatest economic times in history (the late 1800s-1980s). Without government interference the people would mainly be working slaves forced to work for peanuts with no rights, no protections, and violent evil owners who saw you as a expendable replaceable cog in the machine.

Another important thing to understand about why those laws came into place was because people were about at the point of hanging the rich. If they keep growing their wealth well not bringing up everyone else along the way, it might encourage the same reaction again.

I am not Robin Hood for believing that the rich shouldn’t be pulling much farther ahead on wealth and leaving everyone else struggling. These corporate parasites are slowly but steadily eating away at both the working class and the companies they run.

A simple way to fix it could be to have any bonus paid out to the executives to be paid a equal amount to all employees (i.e. your bonus was 4x your salary, everyone else in the company gets the same). It is fair and simple as the people who run the company didn’t achieve what happened for that company in a vacuum, rather it is a team effort that many times happens in spite of the people running it.


It is a start to fixing things. I never said it was the magic silver bullet, but it is a step in the right direction. Not trying to fix things is just accepting defeat which is why I referenced fiddling on the titanic.

Seems like a lot of older people just want to keep living the high life without regard for the damage they are doing to the future because they will not have to deal with the consequences.

If Karl Marx were alive he would be proud of you. Every one who has earned wealth has done it by putting their efforts into earning it and they have paid a price for it. They have sacrificed time, often times family, health to achieve a goal. The same can be said to a certain extent about the 3rd generation ones. Very few are content and there are any number who are featured in the news with one problem or another. Prince Andrew is probably a great illustration of that. But back to that first generation. In return for those efforts they have provided a decent living for any number of families. Yes they ran sweatshops until minimum wages made them unprofitable. Cheers for the government. What did they accomplish? Those sweatshops are now in Bangladesh and China and the people who worked in them were left unemployed. My in-laws went through that and were forced to move into her father's home for years instead of their own home which they had to sell. So there are two sides or more to government interference.
You talk about all us rich retired folks enjoying government largesse. Many of us are still supplementing our kids. Many have taken out mortgages to facilitate their buying a home. Some have put in basement apartments so the kids could move back. Sure they go to Florida for two months in the winter. So what? The money I don't spend on gas going to work and the suits that are no longer required would cover much of those expenses and downsizing into a townhouse covers the rest: which is what many have done. There will always be poor people for any number of reasons. I just did a search for seniors earning in Canada. The median income is 31000 after taxes so you aren't chasing after a whole lot of people. Since the ceiling is 148,000 I would suggest that re-setting the roof at 125,000 might cover the annual meal costs on CanForce 1.(sarcasm) There are bigger and more blatant wastes to pursue.

 

[brihard]

In actuality, I agree with you

Do you?

but singling that out is not the road to recovery as I have tried to point out. It is a distraction.

I have not claimed it is. I’ve said it’s one of many problems.

My 12000 is not the reason why the average house in Canada is 847,000 whilst south of us it is 360,000.

I have not claimed that particular unjustified spending is causal to housing prices. You’re swinging at a straw man.

And explain to me why we were still sending money to support China up until recently; if we aren't still doing so.

We should not be, but that’s not what was being discussed. However, see point 1, “one of many problems”.

Explain why hospitals are actually laying off nursing staff and closing facilities whilst crying poor when they are the beneficiaries of much of our GDP.

Ask your provincial government.

No my friend, you can rant and rave all you want about OAS

Who’s ranting and raving? I’ve been nothing but calm on this, and I’ve kept it narrowly topical.

but that freeing up that portion of the budget isn't going to solve a damn thing.

Freeing up that portion of the budget would solve the equivalent dollar value’s worth of things. What those specific things would or should be is above my pay grade. Though I’d suggest that maybe a portion of it could go to boost OAS or GIS at much lower income brackets. I’ve seen senior poverty and it sucks. Or we could buy a train or something, I dunno.